The case against compulsory helmets

Surely helmets must be a good idea? That's the first reaction from most people when they hear CTC's policy against compulsory helmet use. So what's the case for CTC's position?

Unhelmeted cycling is the norm in the Netherlands, even for children

Cycling is healthy

Cycling regularly gives you a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger[2] and a life expectancy 2 years above the average. In terms of life-years gained and lost, the Government acknowledges that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks involved – by a factor of 20:1 according to one estimate, and even higher according to a recent study from Spain[3].

Cycling is also a very popular form of exercise, ranking only behind swimming and athletics in popularity. Furthermore, when asked which activity people wish to do more of, cycling is second only to swimming.

By contrast, helmet wearing rates are, if anything, inversely related to cyclists' safety. In countries where cycle use is highest - such as the Netherlands and Denmark - cycle helmet use tends to be much lower than in countries with a higher risk of cycling, such as Britain and the US.

Imposing helmet-wearing stops people cycling

International evidence also shows that making cyclists wear helmets leads to reduced cycle use - particularly among teenagers - thereby undermining efforts to maximise its health and other benefits.